Search Results

Search found 25872 results on 1035 pages for 'document security'.

Page 167/1035 | < Previous Page | 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174  | Next Page >

• Creating limited user account on Windows 7

  - by serena

  I'm sharing my PC (Win 7 x64 Home Premium) with a friend, and I wanna create a guest user for her. I don't want her to reach my files, Windows settings, program adjustments etc. She should just surf the net, create/edit her own Word, Excel documents, and simple things like these. How can I create this user account and make the necessary arrangements for limitations?

  Read the article

• How to stop registration attempts on Asterisk

  - by Travesty3

  The main question: My Asterisk logs are littered with messages like these: [2012-05-29 15:53:49] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 15:53:50] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 15:53:55] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 15:53:55] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 15:53:57] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device <sip:[email protected]>;tag=cb23fe53 [2012-05-29 15:53:57] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device <sip:[email protected]>;tag=cb23fe53 [2012-05-29 15:54:02] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 15:54:03] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '37.75.210.177' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 21:20:36] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '"55435217"<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '65.218.221.180' - No matching peer found [2012-05-29 21:20:36] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Registration from '"1731687005"<sip:[email protected]>' failed for '65.218.221.180' - No matching peer found [2012-05-30 01:18:58] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=dEBcOzUysX [2012-05-30 01:18:58] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=9zUari4Mve [2012-05-30 01:19:00] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=sOYgI1ItQn [2012-05-30 01:19:02] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=2EGLTzZSEi [2012-05-30 01:19:04] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=j0JfZoPcur [2012-05-30 01:19:06] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=Ra0DFDKggt [2012-05-30 01:19:08] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=rR7q7aTHEz [2012-05-30 01:19:10] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=VHUMtOpIvU [2012-05-30 01:19:12] NOTICE[5578] chan_sip.c: Sending fake auth rejection for device "unknown" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=JxZUzBnPMW I use Asterisk for an automated phone system. The only thing it does is receives incoming calls and executes a Perl script. No outgoing calls, no incoming calls to an actual phone, no phones registered with Asterisk. It seems like there should be an easy way to block all unauthorized registration attempts, but I have struggled with this for a long time. It seems like there should be a more effective way to prevent these attempts from even getting far enough to reach my Asterisk logs. Some setting I could turn on/off that doesn't allow registration attempts at all or something. Is there any way to do this? Also, am I correct in assuming that the "Registration from ..." messages are likely people attempting to get access to my Asterisk server (probably to make calls on my account)? And what's the difference between those messages and the "Sending fake auth rejection ..." messages? Further detail: I know that the "Registration from ..." lines are intruders attempting to get access to my Asterisk server. With Fail2Ban set up, these IPs are banned after 5 attempts (for some reason, one got 6 attempts, but w/e). But I have no idea what the "Sending fake auth rejection ..." messages mean or how to stop these potential intrusion attempts. As far as I can tell, they have never been successful (haven't seen any weird charges on my bills or anything). Here's what I have done: Set up hardware firewall rules as shown below. Here, xx.xx.xx.xx is the IP address of the server, yy.yy.yy.yy is the IP address of our facility, and aa.aa.aa.aa, bb.bb.bb.bb, and cc.cc.cc.cc are the IP addresses that our VoIP provider uses. Theoretically, ports 10000-20000 should only be accessible by those three IPs.+-------+-----------------------------+----------+-----------+--------+-----------------------------+------------------+ | Order | Source Ip | Protocol | Direction | Action | Destination Ip | Destination Port | +-------+-----------------------------+----------+-----------+--------+-----------------------------+------------------+ | 1 | cc.cc.cc.cc/255.255.255.255 | udp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 10000-20000 | | 2 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 80 | | 3 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 2749 | | 4 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 443 | | 5 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 53 | | 6 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 1981 | | 7 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 1991 | | 8 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 2001 | | 9 | yy.yy.yy.yy/255.255.255.255 | udp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 137-138 | | 10 | yy.yy.yy.yy/255.255.255.255 | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 139 | | 11 | yy.yy.yy.yy/255.255.255.255 | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 445 | | 14 | aa.aa.aa.aa/255.255.255.255 | udp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 10000-20000 | | 17 | bb.bb.bb.bb/255.255.255.255 | udp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 10000-20000 | | 18 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 1971 | | 19 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 2739 | | 20 | any | tcp | inbound | permit | xx.xx.xx.xx/255.255.255.255 | 1023-1050 | | 21 | any | all | inbound | deny | any on server | 1-65535 | +-------+-----------------------------+----------+-----------+--------+-----------------------------+------------------+ Set up Fail2Ban. This is sort of working, but it's reactive instead of proactive, and doesn't seem to be blocking everything (like the "Sending fake auth rejection ..." messages). Set up rules in sip.conf to deny all except for my VoIP provider. Here is my sip.conf with almost all commented lines removed (to save space). Notice at the bottom is my attempt to deny all except for my VoIP provider:[general] context=default allowguest=no allowoverlap=no bindport=5060 bindaddr=0.0.0.0 srvlookup=yes disallow=all allow=g726 allow=ulaw allow=alaw allow=g726aal2 allow=adpcm allow=slin allow=lpc10 allow=speex allow=g726 insecure=invite alwaysauthreject=yes ;registertimeout=20 registerattempts=0 register = user:pass:[email protected]:5060/700 [mysipprovider] type=peer username=user fromuser=user secret=pass host=sip.mysipprovider.com fromdomain=sip.mysipprovider.com nat=no ;canreinvite=yes qualify=yes context=inbound-mysipprovider disallow=all allow=ulaw allow=alaw allow=gsm insecure=port,invite deny=0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 permit=aa.aa.aa.aa/255.255.255.255 permit=bb.bb.bb.bb/255.255.255.255 permit=cc.cc.cc.cc/255.255.255.255

  Read the article

• Registry remotley hacked win 7 need help tracking the perp

  - by user577229

  I was writing some .VBS code at thhe office that would allow certain file extensions to be downloaded without a warning dialog on a w7x32 system. The system I was writing this on is in a lab on a segmented subnet. All web access is via a proxy server. The only means of accessing my machine is via the internet or from within the labs MSFT AD domain. While writing and testing my code I found a message of sorts. Upon refresing the registry to verify my code changed a dword, instead the message HELLO was written and visible in regedit where the dword value wass called for. I took a screen shot and proceeded to edit my code. This same weird behavior occurred last time I was writing registry code except on another internal server. I understand that remote registry access exists for windows systems. I will block this immediately once I return to the office. What I want to know is, can I trace who made this connection? How would I do this? I suspect the cause of this is the cause of other "odd" behaviors I'm experiencing at work such as losing control of my input director master control for over an hour and unchanged code that all of a sudden fails for no logical region. These failures occur at funny times, whenver I'm about to give a demonstration of my test code. I know this sounds crazy however knowledge of the registry component makes this believable. Once the registry can be accessed, the entire system is compromised. Any help or sanity checking is appreciated.

  Read the article

• Does WD Drive Lock encrypt the data?

  - by ssg

  I wonder if WD Drive Lock ineed encrypts the data on a Western Digital My Book Essential device or just puts a firmware-level password on the device. If it's just a password the data surely could be retrieved by a third party. I could not find anything on about that on user manuals. I found a blog saying "data is secured with AES256" bla bla but that doesn't say anything about if the password could be compromised or not. Because I don't see any delays when I add/remove the password. On the other hand when I enable BitLocker, it takes hours before it encrypts everything with my password.

  Read the article

• Bad ways to secure wireless network.

  - by Moshe

  I was wondering if anybody had any thoughts on this, as I recently saw a Verizon DSL network set up where the WEP key was the last 8 characters of the router's MAC address. (It's bad enough that hey were using WEP in the first place...)

  Read the article

• WEP/WPA/WPA2 and wifi sniffing

  - by jcea

  Hi, I know that WEP traffic can be "sniffed" by any user of the WIFI. I know that WPA/WPA2 traffic is encrypted using a different link key for each user, so they can't sniff traffic... unless they capture the initial handshake. If you are using a PSK (preshared key) schema, then you recover the link key trivially from this initial handshake. If you don't know the PSK, you can capture the handshake and try to crack the PSK by bruteforce offline. Is my understanding correct so far?. I know that WPA2 has AES mode and can use "secure" tokens like X.509 certificates and such, and it is said to be secure against sniffing because capturing the handshake doesn't help you. So, is WPA2+AES secure (so far) against sniffing, and how it actually works?. That is, how is the (random) link key negociated?. When using X.509 certificates or a (private and personal) passphrase. Do WPA/WPA2 have other sniffer-secure modes beside WPA2+AES? How is broadcast traffic managed to be received by all the WIFI users, if each has a different link key?. Thanks in advance! :).

  Read the article

• Encrypt LAN and wifi traffic on small private network

  - by Grimlockz

  I need some advice about encrypt all traffic on a small private network running wi-fi and LAN traffic on 192.168.0.x network. The network would comprise of client laptops connecting to the wi-fi router (192.168.0.254) via ethernet connection or wireless. The main purpose of the server is for the client laptops to talk to two servers on different IP's (192.168.0.200 and 192.168.0.201) on ports 80 and 433. My main concern is having packet sniffers and what not getting access to the data. The only ways I see at the moment is to have VPN running on the network or use IPSec policy's to do this. Any other ways guys?

  Read the article

• Information about recent code injection from http://superiot.ru

  - by klennepette

  Hello, I manage the hosting for a few dozen websites. Since about a week I've been finding this code in 12 different websites in theindex.php files: <script type="text/javascript" src="http://superiot.ru/**.js"></script> // The name of the actual javascript file differs <!-- some hash here--> Some of the websites are on different servers, some aren't. I'm just wondering if anyone else has been seeing this too. Edit with some more information: All servers are centOS 5.3 PHP versions are either 5.2.9 or 5.2.4 Apache versions are either 2.2.3 or 1.3.39

  Read the article

• How to securely store and update backup on remote server via ssh/rsync

  - by Sergey P. aka azure

  I have about 200 Gb of pictures (let's say about 1 mb/file, 200k files) on my desktop. I have access (including root access) to remote linux server. And I want to have updateable backup of my pictures on remote server. rsync seems to be the right tool for such kind of job. But other people also have access (including root access) to this server and I want to keep my pictures private. So the question is: what is the best way to keep private files on remote "shared" linux server securely?

  Read the article

• Our VPS is being used as a Warez mule

  - by Mikuso

  The company I work for runs a series of ecommerce stores on a VPS. It's a WAMP stack, 50gb storage. We use an archaic piece of ecommerce software which operates almost entirely client-side. When an order is taken, it writes it to disk and then we schedule a task to download the orders once every 10 minutes. A few days ago, we ran out of disk space, which caused orders to fail to be written. I quickly hopped on to delete some old logs from the mailserver and freed up a couple of GB pretty quickly, but I wondered how we could fill up 50gb will nothing much more than logs. Turns out, we didn't. Hidden deep within the c:\System Volume Information directory, we have a stack of pirated videos, which seem to have appeared (looking at the timestamps) over the past three weeks. Porn, American Sports, Australian cooking shows. A very odd collection. Doesn't look like an individual's personal tastes - more like the VPS is being used as a mule. We have a 5-attempts and you're blocked policy on our FTP server (plus, there is no FTP account with access to that directory), and the windows user account has had it's password changed recently. The main avenues are sealed - and logs can verify that. I thought I'd watch and see if it happened again, and yes, another cooking show has appeared this morning. I am the only one to know of this problem at my company, and only one of two with access to the VPS (the other being my boss, but no - it's not him). So how is this happening? Is there a vulnerability in some of the software on the VPS? Are the VPS owners peddling warez across our rented space? (can they do this?) I don't want to delete the warez in case it is seen as a hostile action against this outside force, and they choose to retaliate. What should I do? How do I troubleshoot this? Has this happened to anyone else before?

  Read the article

• Restricting Access to Application(s) on Point of Sale system

  - by BSchlinker

  I have a customer with two point of sale systems, a few workstations and a Windows 2003 SBS Server. The point of sale systems are typically running QuickBooks Point of Sale and are logged in with a user who has restricted permissions / access (via Group Policy). Occasionally, one of the managers needs to be able to run a few additional applications -- including some accounting software. I have created an additional user for this manager, allowing them to login and access the accounting software. The problem is, it can be problematic to switch users on the system, as QuickBooks takes a few minutes to close (on POSUser) and then reopen (on ManagerUser). If customers are waiting, this slows things down drastically. Since the accounting software is stored on a network drive, it would be easiest if the manager could simply double click something, authenticate against the network drive / domain controller and then the program would launch. When they close the program, the session to the network drive would be lost and the program would no longer be accessible. Is there any easy way to do this? Both users are on a domain and the system is Windows 7. I just don't want to require the user to switch back and forth. In a worst case scenario, they forget to switch back and leave the accounting software wide open.

  Read the article

• How do I remove the ServerSignature added by mod_fcgid?

  - by matthew

  I'm running Mod_Security and I'm using the SecServerSignature to customize the Server header that Apache returns. This part works fine, however I'm also running mod_fcgid which appends "mod_fcgid/2.3.5" to the header. Is there any way I can turn this off? Setting ServerSignature off doesn't do anything. I was able to get it to go away by changing the ServerTokens but that removed the customization I had added.

  Read the article

• Disable mod_security on Dreamhost, for a single cgi script

  - by Hippyjim

  Hi I've searched around a lot, and tried various tweaks to .htaccess files to try to turn off mod_security for a particular cgi script (uber uploader) but it doesn't seem to have any effect. The most popular one I see rehashed all over the web is: # Turn off mod_security filtering. SecFilterEngine Off # The below probably isn't needed, # but better safe than sorry. SecFilterScanPOST Off Which looks relative simple to me - if "SecFilterEngine" is in some way related to mod_security of course. Shame it has absolutely no effect! Does anyone have a suggested way I can simply disable it for a request to any file in my cgi-bin directory?

  Read the article

• Windows Server 2012 - SSL Cypher Suite Order Not Long Enough

  - by Sam

  I want to re-order the cypher suites on our new Windows Server 2012 box to help mitigate the BEAST vulnerability for our clients. I went to Local Group Policy => Computer Configuration => Administrative Templates => Network => SSL Configuration Settings, opened SSL Cypher Suite Order, enabled it, and copied the values from the SSL Cypher Suites textbox. I pasted them into notepad, re-ordered them, then copied+pasted them back into the SSL Cypher Suites textbox. However, the box isn't long enough to hold them all, despite the fact that the length didn't change. I would have to drop the last 3 cyphers (SSL_CK_DES_192_EDE3_CBC_WITH_MD5,TLS_RSA_WITH_NULL_SHA256,TLS_RSA_WITH_NULL_SHA) in order for it to fit. Should I just drop them? Other ideas?

  Read the article

• Bacula Director and Storage in LAN

  - by B14D3

  I have two networks LAN and DMZ.. Machines in DMZ are accesible from internet ( only over http). In LAN I have servers that see all LAN and all DMZ machines but machinse from DMZ don't see any LAN servers. Machines in LAN have access only to all LAN and DMZ, no direct access to internet and no access from internet. DMZ <------ LAN DMZ ----X--->LAN I'm planning to configure Bacula as major backup system. My plan is to install Bacula Director and Storage deamon on the same server in LAN for safety reasons. So my question is: Will this configuration work, is it posible for bacula director and storage deamon installed on server in LAN to makes backup servers that are in my DMZ? Or in this network configuration Bacula should be in DMZ? (If yes will I can backup with it servers in LAN ?)

  Read the article

• hardening a server: disallow password-login for sudoers and log unusual ips

  - by Fabian Zeindl

  Two question regarding sudo-login into an ubuntu-system (debian tips welcome as well): Is it possible to require sudoers on my box to only login with publickey-authentication? Is it possible to log which ip sudoers log in from and check that for "unusual activity" or take actions? I'm thinking about temporarily removing sudo-rights if sudoers don't log in from whitelisted IPs. Or is that too risky to be exploited?

  Read the article

• Prevent registry changes by users

  - by graf_ignotiev

  Background: I run a small computer lab of 10 computers using Windows 7 x64 Enterprise. Our users are set up as limited users. For additional restrictions, I set up local group policy for non-administrators using the microsoft management console. Problem: Recently, I found out that some of these restrictions had been removed. Reviewing the settings MMC and in ntuser.pol showed that the settings should still be in place. However, the related registry settings were missing in ntuser.dat. I already have registry editing disabled in the GPO (though not in silent mode). Question: What is the best way to deal with this situation? Should I look into preventing registry setting changes? Should I set up registry auditing to found out how these keys are getting changed in the first place? Or should I give up the ghost and write some kind of logon script that enforces registry values if they've been change? Any other ideas?

  Read the article

• LDAP for privilege control?

  - by neoice

  I've been wondering for a while if LDAP can be used to control user privileges. For example, if I have UNIX and web logins, is there an easy way to grant a user access to just or just UNIX (or even both?) My current attempt at solving this very problem was to create 'login' and 'nologin' groups, but this doesn't seem fine-grained enough to meet the ideas I have in my head. I'm also still in the situation where all UNIX users are web users, which isn't a problem so much as an indicator of the limitations. Does anyone have any input on this? Has this problem already been solved?

  Read the article

• How secure is the Subversion connection to an https URL

  - by reprogrammer

  I'm using TortoiseSVN as my subversion client on Windows 7. My subversion repository has an https URL. I'm on a public network and I'd like to make sure that my connection to the server is secure. I wonder if TortoiseSVN encrypts my password when it talks to my repository.

  Read the article

• mystery Internet traffic to port 445

  - by Ben Collver

  Recently, I noticed traffic from the office network to TCP port 445 on the Internet [a]. Below are the Linux firewall log entries to Facebook's network [b] and Google's network [c]. I would like to identify the source of this traffic. My first guess is that Facebook and Google might be using multiple TCP ports for SSL load balancing. However, I could not confirm this based on the web proxy logs. What else might it be? [a] http://support.microsoft.com/kb/204279 [b] Sep 4 08:30:03 firewall01 kernel: IN=eth0 OUT=eth2 SRC=10.0.0.131 DST=69.171.237.34 LEN=52 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=127 ID=14287 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=51711 DPT=445 WINDOW=8192 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0 [c] Aug 28 06:02:41 firewall01 kernel: IN=eth0 OUT=eth2 SRC=10.0.0.115 DST=173.194.33.47 LEN=52 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=127 ID=4558 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=49294 DPT=445 WINDOW=8192 RES=0x00 SYN URGP=0

  Read the article

• Just added mod_security... want to whitelist a series of sub directories.

  - by kylex

  I am running a host and just updated mod_security. It "broke" a CMS in multiple sites. I want to white list all sub-directories named CMS. How do I specify a rule to do that?

  Read the article

• Nginx : Proper use of limit_req_zone and limit_req

  - by xperator

  I have 2 website running on VPS. Their purpose is sharing music files and publishing news. Both of them use wordpress. What I am trying is that I want to prevent little hackers from flooding the webserver and putting stress on the server to make it crash. The problem is that after using limit_req_zone and limit_req my website became very slow. Browsing Wordpress control panel takes a long long time. I tried changing values but it didn't improve much. I guess the problem is Wordpress because it's the only script I am using on both front and back end. Here is the last setting which seems to be more responsive than others : limit_req_zone $binary_remote_addr zone=flood:5m rate=10r/m; location ~ \.php$ { limit_req zone=flood burst=100 nodelay; } What are the optimal values that should be used in my case (wp) ? I want the website have it's normal behavior, On the other hand stopping lifeless people from flooding. Another question, Is it safe and enough to use limit_req only on php files ?

  Read the article

• How to close the logon process named NtLmSsp ?

  - by Aristos

  I have a windows 2003 server and time to time I am getting many login failures like this one. Logon Failure: Reason: Unknown user name or bad password User Name: administrator Domain: xx.xx.xx.xx Logon Type: 3 Logon Process: NtLmSsp Authentication Package: NTLM Workstation Name: XLHOST Caller User Name: - Caller Domain: - Caller Logon ID: - Caller Process ID: - Transited Services: - Source Network Address: 173.45.70.100 <- hacker Source Port: 4722 AND Logon attempt by: MICROSOFT_AUTHENTICATION_PACKAGE_V1_0 Logon account: user Source Workstation: XLHOST Error Code: 0xC0000064 The question is, how can I close this process of login ?, what I have left open and some one can try to login ? Some notes: I login to the server using tunneling, nothing is open except dns, email, and web ports, not even ftp, and all default ports are change and hidden. I also monitor port scan and capture any one that try to find the hidden ports. Probably it is something open... Thank you in advanced.

  Read the article

• What kinds of protections against viruses does Linux provide out of the box for the average user?

  - by ChocoDeveloper

  I know others have asked this, but I have other questions related to this. In particular, I'm concerned about the damage that the virus can do the user itself (his files), not the OS in general nor other users of the same machine. This question came to my mind because of that ransomware virus that is encrypting machines all over the world, and then asking the user to send a payment in Bitcoin if he wants to recover his files. I have already received and opened the email that is supposed to contain the virus, so I guess I didn't do that bad because nothing happened. But would I have survived if I opened the attachment and it was aimed at Linux users? I guess not. One of the advantages is that files are not executable by default right after downloading them. Is that just a bad default in Windows and could be fixed with a proper configuration? As a Linux user, I thought my machine was pretty secure by default, and I was even told that I shouldn't bother installing an antivirus. But I have read some people saying that the most important (or only?) difference is that Linux is just less popular, so almost no one writes viruses for it. Is that right? What else can I do to be safe from this kind of ransomware virus? Not automatically executing random files from unknown sources seems to be more than enough, but is it? I can't think of many other things a user can do to protect his own files (not the OS, not other users), because he has full permissions on them.

  Read the article

• How to run specific program with root privileges (Ubuntu OS) when no sudo user log into system?

  - by makulia

  How to run specific program with root privileges (Ubuntu OS) when no sudo user log into system? Program need root privileges to function correctly. Normal user shouldn't be able to shutdown this process. For example, I have to users. Admin and Client. Program should start only when Client log into system. It needs root privileges and Client shouldn't be able to shut this process down.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174  | Next Page >